HARRISBURG – State legislators from both parties are moving quickly to curb the use of Flock automated license‑plate readers (ALPRs). As of early September, at least nine bills have been filed in the General Assembly, seven of them in the past six weeks, aiming either to limit data‑retention practices or to ban the technology entirely.
Law‑enforcement backs the tool
Police officials argue the cameras are a vital investigative resource. Scott Bohn, head of the Pennsylvania Police Chiefs Association, told Spotlight PA that ALPRs “have become an important investigative tool for law enforcement, assisting agencies in locating stolen vehicles, identifying vehicles associated with serious crimes, locating missing or endangered persons, and developing investigative leads.” District Attorneys Association executive director Kelly Callihan echoed that sentiment, warning a blanket ban would “hinder law enforcement efforts to respond to violent crime, find stolen vehicles or missing persons, or investigate other serious threats to community safety.”
Critics raise privacy concerns
Opponents, including the state ACLU chapter, contend the technology creates a pervasive surveillance network with little oversight. Legislative director Liz Randol warned that continuous data collection can produce “a map of your life,” exposing religious practices, medical visits, political activity and personal relationships. She also highlighted past incidents where ALPR data was misused to track individuals or produced false‑positive stops.
Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro has publicly opposed the cameras, calling them “not something in the public interest.” His spokesperson said the administration is working with the General Assembly on legislation to protect Pennsylvanians’ privacy. Republican gubernatorial candidate Stacy Garrity also supports a ban, describing the devices as an “intrusive invasion of privacy.”
Legislative proposals
Sen. Dan Laughlin (R‑Erie) introduced a bill to ban the technology outright, warning that once a surveillance network is built, “there is no guarantee it will only be used in ways we find acceptable today.” Other lawmakers favor regulation rather than prohibition. Reps. David Rowe (R‑Union) and Josh Bashline (R‑Clarion) propose requiring warrants to search ALPR data and granting local governments the authority to ban the cameras in their jurisdictions. Their goal, Rowe said, is “to create accountability on the government side about how those technologies are used.”
Former Rep. Josh Siegel, now Lehigh County executive, who once championed easier camera installation, now says he is “more skeptical” and wants guardrails before further expansion.
Technical background and industry response
Flock cameras capture images of every passing vehicle, using AI to read plates, makes and models, and then store the data in a searchable database accessible to participating law‑enforcement agencies. The company’s website states that data is automatically deleted after a set period—typically seven days unless local law requires otherwise. After criticism, Flock reduced its default retention from 30 days to seven and added options for agencies to block immigration‑related searches.
Sixteen states already have policies limiting ALPR use, and Florida recently ordered the removal of the devices from state highways. No state has yet enacted a total ban.
What’s next?
The General Assembly will reconvene this fall to consider the pending bills. Law‑enforcement leaders stress the need for any legislation to balance privacy protections with the ability to investigate serious crimes, while civil‑liberties advocates urge stricter limits on data retention and sharing.
Original reporting: Herald-Standard – latest news for Uniontown, Pennsylvania — read the source article.
